MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367172984 · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(23)00021-1

Effectiveness of handwashing with soap for preventing acute respiratory infections in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4367172984 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ian Ross, Sarah Bick, Philip Ayieko, Robert Dreibelbis, Jennyfer Wolf, Matthew C. Freeman, Elizabeth Allen, Michael Bräuer, Oliver Cumming

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersWorld Health OrganizationBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionMeta-analysisHygieneRespiratory infectionEnvironmental healthMEDLINEGlobal healthCochrane LibraryPublic healthInternal medicineNursingRespiratory system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Acute respiratory infection (ARI) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally, with 83% of ARI mortality occurring in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) before the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to estimate the effect of interventions promoting handwashing with soap on ARI in LMICs. Methods In our systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Global Health, and Global Index Medicus for studies of handwashing with soap interventions in LMICs from inception to May 25, 2021. We included randomised and non-randomised controlled studies of interventions conducted in domestic, school, or childcare settings. Interventions promoting hand hygiene methods other than handwashing with soap were excluded, as were interventions in health-care facilities or the workplace. The primary outcome was ARI morbidity arising from any pathogen for participants of any age. Secondary outcomes were lower respiratory infection, upper respiratory infection, influenza confirmed by diagnostic test, COVID-19 confirmed by diagnostic test, and all-cause mortality. We extracted relative risks (RRs), using random-effects meta-analysis to analyse study results, and metaregression to evaluate heterogeneity. We assessed risk of bias in individual studies using an adapted Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and assessed the overall body of evidence using a Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021231414. Findings 26 studies with 161 659 participants met inclusion criteria, providing 27 comparisons (21 randomised). Interventions promoting handwashing with soap reduced any ARI compared with no handwashing intervention (RR 0·83 [95% CI 0·76–0·90], I 2 88%; 27 comparisons). Interventions also reduced lower respiratory infections (0·78 [0·64–0·94], I 2 64%; 12 comparisons) and upper respiratory infections (0·74 [0·59–0·93], I 2 91%; seven comparisons), but not test-confirmed influenza (0·94 [0·42–2·11], I 2 90%; three comparisons), test-confirmed COVID-19 (no comparisons), or all-cause mortality (prevalence ratio 0·95 [95% CI 0·71–1·27]; one comparison). For ARI, no heterogeneity covariates were significant at p<0·1 and the GRADE rating was moderate certainty evidence. Interpretation Interventions promoting handwashing with soap can reduce ARI in LMICs, and could help to prevent the large burden of respiratory disease. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Reckitt Global Hygiene Institute, and UK FCDO.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.507
Threshold uncertainty score0.828

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations104
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe LancetSame topicChild Nutrition and Water AccessFrench-language works237,207